It's common for opponents of Big Government to assume destructive legislation is "bad policy," and chalk the resulting damage up to "unintended consequences." Not only is it human nature to believe the best in others, our day to day lives confirm it to be true. When considering government policy though, we're not talking about those people in our day to day lives ... We're talking about politicians - men and women who, for the most part, seek power and influence above all.
The destructive effects of the legislation passed by Washington (and our state capitols) is so blatantly obvious however, it must be motivated, at least in part, by malice. I concede that a handful of Congressional members are naive to what they're doing, but that percentage is too small for us mere mundanes to assume that "bad policy" was derived out of good intentions.
The "Big-Dumb-Dummy" argument doesn't provide cover for bad intentions either. Being a politician certainly doesn't require much of an IQ, but it still takes smarts to work your way through the system. Speaker Pelosi may always and everywhere sound like a dunce, but because she constantly lies. President Obama hasn't "failed" his constituents because of "incompetence" either, he just has a different agenda. Barney Frank was no more naive to problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, than you are of your own first name.
Same thing on the other side of the aisle ... Republicans neither "cave" to Democrats or get "tricked" by them. They vote for legislation purposely, regardless of what their constituents think. The only genuine "Big-Dumb-Dummies" out there, are those of us who support these Democrats and Republicans.
Bad Intent
Consider inflation. People may not want their money taxed away through debasement of their money, but inflation does have beneficiaries. Inflation is a major source of government revenue and depreciates its debts. Inflation profits big banks and government contractors too. Large private lenders also love inflation, because it allows them to profit at the property owner expense. While union members, welfare recipients, and government employees are awarded cost-of-living raises to off-set the debasement (patronage), the Country Class savers get stuck paying the tax via lost purchasing power, and retirees on fixed income get a standard of living decline.
Simply bad policy?
What about environmentalism? The environmentalists hardly keep it a secret that they wish to make us all poor. Wanting us to stop driving our cars, they crank up emissions standards and raise gasoline taxes hoping to "nudge" us out of driving. They spend money (that doesn't exist) building mass-transit systems nobody will use voluntarily. Then they cook up "Cap and Trade," a scheme that will richly line the Ruling Class pockets richly, trading nothing more than air.
Unintended consequences? My ass!
Giving statists (of any stripe) the benefit of the doubt, grants them the moral high ground, when the truth is they're lying thieves at best. There's nothing "unintended" about replacing private property with subservience, family allegiance with bureaucratic dictate, rule of law with executive command, or business independence with corporatism.
We've all witnessed the various forms of socialism crash, burn and die. The Soviet Empire is gone, European Social Democracies are bankrupt, our own cities and states have been destroyed, and the economy ruined.
It's time to wise up people, and start calling it what it is ... bad intent.
Post inspired by "Intent vs. Incompetence."
"Barney Frank was no more naive to problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, than you are of your own first name."
-Are you trying to infer that Fannie & Freddie is the cause of the housing bubble burst? Think again, CL.
Remember Phil Gramm, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee in 1999? Yeah that guy from Texas now working for a Swiss Bank.
Was it bad policy or bad intent when he authored the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which allowed banks to make loans (-mostly re-finances, NOT 1st time loans to poor folk under Fannie&Freddie), which could be turned in to SECURITIES and sold as such to make a lot of money? Remember, the Glass Stegall Act of 1933 forbid this mingling of banking and investment, but Phil Gramm had a better idea. Of all the foreclosed loans made to people under Fannie and Freddie, what percentage of the total foreclosures did they make up? It was the re-finances that made banks money, first by originating the loan for a fee, and then selling it as a security. It was re-finances NOT Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac that crashed our economy.
No. I was calling Barney Frank a bald-faced liar.
I have not covered the cause of the crisis in one single post, but it's explained throughout the following categories:
http://the-classic-liberal.com/category/federalreserve/
http://the-classic-liberal.com/category/economymarkets/
And this post is important too:
http://the-classic-liberal.com/can-you-afford-not-to-hold-them-accountable/
[...] Reaganite Republican, and Michael from Jumping in Pools. It seems that the topic resonated, as our friend, the Classic Liberal, has also commented. Here is his post, republished with permission. It’s common for opponents of Big Government [...]